tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN May 16, 2011 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
over reservations having to do with war power. wilson knew there was nothing objectionable to the lodge, reservation on war. he got into a personal dispute. as the newspaper says, he strangled his own child. everybody in the un charter new white the united states did not join the league of nations. we want to make it very clear that congress only has the as we all know, five years later, truman goes to war, never comes to congress for authority. dean acheson, secretary of state, said that truman had done his "utmost to uphold the sanctity of the charter of the united nations and the rule law ." in fact, truman violated his own
pledge that he had made five years earlier. i am sure some you remember what he was asked. i think you know what he said. he said he would call it a police action. secretary of state madeleine albright was asked by a student, how can the president go to war against iraq without authorization from congress? she said you have to understand the terms. this is not war. it is military operations. they all make it very clear that for some reason, war they know is congressional, and they will call it anything other,
humanitarian intervention. it was released on april 1. you can delay it by a day or two. i don't know why you have to go out on april fools' day with a legal analysis. one of the things i have not seen by any legal analysis yet that obama was justified in using military force against libya, because after the security council passed the resolution and libya did not comply with this in full, then obama had to use military force against libya because otherwise, the credibility and reputation of the security council would be damaged.
we care more about the reputation and credibility of the security council at than the u.s. constitution and the u.s. congress. that is a new one to me. john is probably right. there are hints of that in earlier documents -- earlier documents from the administration. congressional support for the war in libya -- on march 1, 2011, the u.s. senate passed by unanimous consent senate resolution 85. a senate resolution is not legally binding, it is just from one chamber. toward the end, it talks about the no-fly zone. that is a big deal, military
activity. unanimous consent, that is really something. what picture do get from that? all the senators out there on the floor debating this and so forth, and there is not one person opposed. i go into detail here in my paper as to what that was. it was introduced on march 1. passed on march 1, and the early version had nothing there about the no-fly zone. you can watch it on c-span. senator schumer is handling it. senate action starts at 4:13 and ends at 4:19.
no hearings, no committee report. it was just brought up. the no-fly zone was not there originally. when was it added? about 10 minutes before shimmers update, this is added. then there is a senate procedure called hot lining where when something is shooting through like a senate resolution, you tell the senate leadership what you are doing by automated phone call or by e-mail and people say there is nothing in the offline procedures to say we just added on a no-fly zone. nothing like that at all. watching c-span, it could be anybody on the floor except center schumer and the presiding officer. no one objected, possibly because there was nobody there
to object pick the senate deliberations took less than a minute. i would just end with this. presidents do have discretion to use military force without prior congressional authorization such as repelling such attacks, rescue american citizens. that has nothing to do with what happened in libya, no connection. america was not threatened or attacked by libya. obama has called the military operation a humanitarian intervention that serves the national interest. one person decides what is in the national interest. launching hundreds of tomahawk missiles, bringing air strikes
in hopes of helping all liberals under throw gaddafi, that is war. under the u.s. constitution got there is only one source for authorizing war. it is congress. to restore constitutional government, if that is what you want, other countries should take up democracy and self- government if you want it here, some say. the public has to be willing to confront president to commit troops to foreign wars without seeking legislative authority. i am not calling for impeachment hearings, but i will say no action by president would more warrant impeachment and removal than usurping the war power from congress and undermining representative government and the system of checks and balances. members of congress need to understand their institutional
duties and those of constituents who brought them to washington d.c. they take an oath to support and defend the constitution, not the president and not the supreme court. thank you. [applause] >> walz jonathan is coming to the microphone, i will say that i was watching hillary clinton on a sunday talk show just after we began the bombing, and she said the senate had voted unanimously for a resolution calling for enforcement of a no- fly zone. i was surprised to hear that, so i went and looked it up. the paragraph says "including the possible imposition of a no- fly zone over libyan territory." >> thank you very much for inviting me to this.
as don mentioned, i spent quite a few years is a foreign correspondent, mostly in the middle east, about 20 years there. when i came back to washington and began to work for congressional quarterly, my editor said that, given your background, probably the best way to approach covering congress, and i had never cover congress before, she said the best way to approach congress is to look upon congress as like a foreign country. it has its own language, its own rules, its own culture, and has its own traditions of behavior, which we have heard some of from the previous speakers. i would like to drill down and focus on one of those characteristics of congress. that is that they tend in these kinds of situations where they have to make a decision on
military powers, they tend to sort of punt on these things. as john said and as congressman goss mentioned, the idea of the 60-day limit, the idea of cutting off funds to troops that are already in the field clearly is a no-no, and is never going to happen. as don pointed out in one of the papers that you have in your packet, congress does not like to take positions on military issues where military defeat is a possibility. they don't want to be on the record. it is much easier to criticize
from the sidelines, and what i would like to discuss today is, we have heard very good arguments for and against the war powers act, whether it is constitutional or not, from mr. fisher and from mr. yoo. probably the most important advice that we have all heard here today comes from congressman goss. he represents not so much that the radical or the academic, but he represents the empirical. in other words, he was a congressman, head of the cia, he has dealt with these situations. as a journalist, my inclination is to listen to those who do,
rather than those who teach. since this whole war powers issue has come up in libya, and i will restrict my remarks to libya, you see the perfect example of congress being all over the map on this thing, and they really look like they are doing a lot, but in fact they are going 60 miles an hour but really standing still. we have this deadline on friday, and as others have said, the 60- day deadline comes due on friday and we will have to see what the president does in terms of going forward with military action or ending its or seeking authorization. we do not quite know yet what he will do, but i will address what
i think is going to happen. right now, we have a bill that has been written up by senators mccain, kerry and levin, respectively the ranking republican on the armed services committee, the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, and the chairman of the armed services committee. what this bill would do would basically arthritis ex post facto the american military operation in libya. mccain, who i have talked to about this, he agrees with john when he says i don't even think
that the war powers act is constitutional. to followat he needs this deadline or come to congress. if such legislation would be needed, we have drafted it, the three of us and here it is, you can use it. so is ready to go, should the president need its or should harry reid believe that the president needs it. not all republicans agree with mccain on this. the party is split within the republican party. you have centered john cornyn of texas. he has introduced a bill that calls on the president to provide congress with a detailed description of u.s. policy objectives in libya both during and after gaddafi's rule. the cornyn bill would also require the president to provide congress with his plan to achieve those objectives and it
would require the president to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force in libya. there is another proposed republican resolution on libya in the senate. this one is a non-binding senate resolution authored by the recently departed senator john ensign of nevada. this resolution declares is not in the vital interest of the united states military to be in libya and the job should be done by nato and the arab league. it does not address the fact that the united states is a key member of nato. the house also is has several pieces of libya related legislation, but both parties in that chamber are just as divided as they are in the senate. last week, the house foreign affairs committee marked a resolution by oklahoma republican tom cole that
directs the secretary of state to provide the house with copies of any documents, records, memos, correspondence that deals with the white house is consultations with congress on libyan operations. last week the house armed services committee marked of the second bill that directs the pentagon to provide the same materials. i think we can see where congressman coal is going with that. there is another two republican measures that express the sense of congress that the president should adhere to the war powers act and obtain specific authorization from congress to use force in libya. one more republican measure would require the president to recommend specific reductions in non security discretionary spending in fiscal 2011 to offset the costs of the libyan
operation. that measure is now before the house armed services and the budget committee. despite all the grumbling about the president's acting in libya without first consulting congress, despite all the measures that have been introduced, house republican leaders have resisted holding any votes on the authority to bomb libya. as i said before, the reason for this i will defer to our moderator who wrote last month ", when congress is confronted with exercising its war powers under the constitution, it is also a sidestep, four steps left and four steps to the right and a lot of swaying back and forth. this is especially true special request to use force. members of congress prefer
avoiding political risk when military failure is a possibility." interestingly, the anti-war democrat, dennis kucinich of ohio, says that he will force a vote on ending the u.s. military operation in libya when the house returns from its weeklong recess next week. as soon as congress returns, he says he will introduce a bill pursuant to the war powers act to halt american military participation in the nato-led libya campaign. if the house foreign affairs committee does not take up this bill within 15 legislative days , it could then move directly to the floor for debate and of boat under the war powers act. that ought to be interesting. the white house says it welcomes congressional input on the war in libya, but like previous administrations,
officials hedged on whether the president needs congressional authorization to maintain military operations there after this deadline expires on friday. meanwhile we hear that the house is considering two possible options that officials there say would keep president obama in compliance with the war powers act. these are the things that john mentioned earlier. one would involve halting all the operations for the day wore a short time, and then they start the clock all over again. or, halting just used of predatory drone missiles, which is really the only offensive combat weaponry are using right out in libya. stop using those, and therefore we are technically in compliance that we stop combat operations. those are the options that we hear the administration is considering. there is also the option of
simply saying we think it is unconstitutional and we are going to go forward. with american troops involved in this operation, and was so much prestige on the line, realistically it is not likely that we are going to stop our operations there. the only thing that remains a mystery is what the justification would be. that is where things stand on capitol hill regarding libya and the war powers act. i am sure it will surprise none of you, the members of congress are in no more of agreement than the members of this panel. thank you very much. [applause] >> what i would like to do before we open up to questions from the audience is to give our panelists a chance to follow up on any comments that were made
after they had a chance to speak. >> i appreciate the comments about the scar tissue had picked up over the years, and is accurate. there is plenty of it. we just have a couple of things going here. we are talking about this power, but the other aspect is even more important, given the way the landscape looks today. it would be wonderful if we could figure out the procedures we were going to use to grant the authorities and everything ahead of time, but i have great faith that presidents in this country and the people of this country will tolerate a president who does the right thing for the united states of america. that is not written down and is not in the constitution. it is just something you take on faith, because we are an extraordinary country and i tend to feel we will get it right. i don't think we will ever sort all this out, because when you
go through all the details, there are so many wonderful arguments. you can go out and take a stand of -- on an issue, but you cannot tell everybody how you are going to vote on everything. you do not know because you don't know what the vote is going to beat. -- what the vote is going to be. you were born to do what is best for that nation and the people at home and abroad. -- you are going to do what is best for the nation. it is a dangerous world and we aren't the people who deal with most of these problems -- we are the people who deal with most of these problems. whether we saw this to everybody's satisfaction, i am not worried. what i am worried is that we
step back from the authority to do what is best for the rest of the world. i cannot talk about something called drones. that is a classified matter and i am not allowed to talk about classified things. if there were such things as drones, it would not surely substitute for the debate we are having, because is a drone of targeted assassination? is using a drone that will probably get you some collateral damage better than a sniper, troops on the ground, or something else? these are all very legitimate debates but it comes down to the same thing every time. it is the judgment based on the good, moral value of doing right and wrong in doing the right thing for this country. that is where i would always want to end up in the debate like this, because you are never going to resolve the friction on
the hill, and i don't think we should. what would you do all day if we did? >> there has been some progress in 17 years. i agree that the un security council's authorization cannot replace what is required under the constitution for domestic authorization of work. even if the un charter has said it was doing that, it cannot replace whatever our domestic process is for deciding on more. i did not go into with great detail, but there is a separate
part of it. if you look at the opinion, it makes a claim that it libyan intervention is not a war under the constitution. it says that congress's power to declare war is not triggered because what we are doing in libya does not constitute war because it is too small because there are no ground forces involved. this is similar to the rationale used in the clinton in ministration for the haiti and in kosovo operations. it does not draw a distinction between ground troops and air wars. it would be a great surprise to muammar gaddafi who is currently trying to hide from these mysterious flying objects that we cannot confirm the is -- the existence of that we are not in war in libya. i don't think -- think about
that military operational incentives this creates. presidents are just going to over use airpower even when it does not make sense. that might be part of what happened in rwanda. there are plenty of areas of disagreement. i quite agree that when the americans wrote the constitution that they were anti-monarchical. but historians say is that in the time between the revolution and writing the constitution, there was a view that it had gone too far, that our framing generation had gone too far over to the legislature. if you look at the state constitutions, there were provisions that said only the legislature can authorize war and the governor cannot carry it out unless he receives legislative approval. look at people like gordon wood
it was a fellow here several years ago and other scholars of the revolutionary period. they say the framers wanted to -- they thought we had gone too far in the other direction. the other thing about offensive versus defensive force is whether that line really makes sense. if the constitution allows for a unilateral presidential action for defensive force but not offensive force, what about anticipatory self-defense? what about when you attack because you think the other person is about to attack you? there was and is a pejorative sense about weapons of mass destruction -- anticipatory
self-defense in iraq. the last thing i will touch on it is the thing mr. goss mentioned, which is consequences. if we do have a choice of systems, which system actually results in the best outcome for the united states and the world? people who have set up the national security system we have to date for making decisions are shaped by the world's warii experience. if the united states and executive branch had been able to act faster, that we might have been able to ensure the war faster and that hitler would have been brought down a lot earlier. it is not the case that requiring the president and congress to agree on everything
produces better results for the country when it comes to foreign affairs. loss of wars have been bad for the country where the president and congress agreed, where congress was pushing for war and the president was reluctant. >> office of legal counsel, legal memo. "since at least the korean war, the u.s. does not as recognized the continued existence of the united nations as an effective international organization is of paramount united states interest." what is this language here? the u.s. government has not
recognize that. some people in the executive branch recognize that. on some days you are speaking for the united states. that is what you do on the executive side. i think john would agree that what it does is the typical laundry list, the report that -- none of those have anything to do with libya. hardly any of them have anything to do with the security council resolution. here is an example. robert jackson, former attorney general and justice of the supreme court, saying the
president's authority has long been recognized as extending to the dispatch of armed forces outside of the united states, either on missions of goodwill or rescue or for the purpose of protecting american lives or property or american interests. of course that has nothing to do with libya. a law professor about three or four weeks ago in an analysis of the memo said that the department's sweeping support for independent presidential power derives primarily from unrelated dicta pulled contexture leave from apposite cases. two other point, i think about
five or six weeks ago the house armed services held a hearing on libya, and i watched it. it was a pretty important hearing. secretary gates was their ad admiral mullen, the chair of the joint chiefs. one of the house members asked date if some nation came to our short can sent tomahawk missiles into new york city, would that be war? gates said something like probably so. we can guess what the next question is. when the united states since some of missiles into libya, is that war? gates says i am not a constitutional law person, that is too complicated. i think the kucinich action makes procedurally more sense than some of the other things. he used that procedure with
regard to afghanistan, but that was authorized. >> it is only supposed to be used if congress does not authorize the action. in this case, technically it is available but it is a concurrent resolution which the supreme court would say is unconstitutional because it affects parties out of the congress. it does not go to the president for his signature. this goes back to 1983 decision on an immigration matter. >> on cause of all, that was one of the strange things. -- on kosovo. clinton goes to nato and under that procedure, he has to get approval from belgium, luxembourg, italy, germany, but not from congress.
but when the house and senate debated it, it debated house concurrent resolutions, which has no legally binding meaning at all. at least the current one is not authorized. it is exactly what the war powers resolution had in mind. >> thank you very much. jonathan, anything you want to follow up on? >> there is the world of laws and treaties and the fine print, and then there is the way the world really works. often they do not match up together. there are two definitions of diplomacy. one is, the art of letting the other guy have your way.
that is one definition. another definition is, the art of saying nice doggie until you can find a rock. this whole discussion about war powers and what happened in libya, you cannot divorce the president's decision, and we do is let him to make decisions and to make tough calls in difficult times. that is what an election is really about. you cannot divorce that from what else was happening in the middle east previous to libya. i live in the middle east for 20 years. 1970-1990. i saw a lot of wars and a lot of liberation movements and i saw lot of terrorism, but i never saw anything like what we are
all seeing right now in egypt, tunisia, syria, and all these places. the era of awakening, these are historic times. this is as historic as the collapse of the ottoman empire after world war i. it is comparable to the berlin wall coming down. prior to the demonstrations in libya, you had the revolution in egypt, the largest arab country. you had the fall of mubarak. relatively peacefully. i think a total of 800 people died, largely at the hands of the secret police, but the army did not get involved. that is a very big deal. you had to need to that preceded egypt, and that ignited the
protests in egypt. now you have egypt here and tunisia here. what is in between them? libya. libya is the bridge between those two countries. i was not in the room when the president decided this, none of us were, but i would imagine that anybody who knows the middle east that was briefing him would tell him that what happens in libya can affect the success or failure of the revolutions in egypt and tunisia. tunisia may not be as important, but egypt is really important. anchor of pro-ge western, modern arab politics in the middle east. after the revolution it may not be as pro-american as it was, but we are not talking about iran here.
but egypt has certain elements that we have to hope will not take power. a lot of this is out of our hands. you have to at least try to direct things if you possibly can in a direction that is most advantageous to u.s. interests. yes, it is true that if you take the view that mr. fisher does that you cannot go to war without some authorization from congress, and if you are going to go to war, as we did with libya, and i can say that firing tomahawk missiles into libya from off the coast is an act of war, i think you have to consider -- you could look it that for the world of legal documents and treaties, which i
am not saying they are not important. they provide order in the world. but there are more things going on here than just war powers. there is a u.s. foreign-policy considerations in the broader middle east which have to be taken into account. you do have to take those into consideration. >> i think the president's letter and his address indicated stability in the region, but the larger issue was the possible humanitarian disaster that would ensue if there were a massacre that did take place. i think the three players that were most influential were those who were around at the time of rwanda, and that weighed heavily. i am talking out hillary clinton, susan rice, and samantha power who was writing about it at the time. starttake questions and out with the lady next to marty.
>> i have two questions. i am a professor at george mason university. my question is, didn't congress by passing the war powers resolution violates the constitution in away, because they have -- only congress has the right to declare war. i think it is a ridiculous piece of regulation. they are giving themselves 60 days. you can blow up the world in two days, so giving them 60 days is ridiculous to a member of the public like myself. i am a child of the vietnam era. it seemed to me also that if you had required -- if congress
would really doing its job and a pole in his responsibility to declare war, you might have had more public support for this particular war. has anyone done a study correlating in recent times the growth of executive power and the unpopularity of force? i think vietnam was the first war that i remember -- we have had a series of unpopular wars, protest, aside from kucinich. i just wonder if anybody has correlated that. >> i think the war powers resolution is a fundamentally dishonest statute. yet to make a compromise between house and senate and you go to conference committee. something says 90 and something
says something else, you can do something else in the middle without violating the constitution. what came out of conference committee was a bastard because section 2 of the war powers resolution says this cortex the framers intend and ensures collective judgment. obviously it does not do that. it opens the door for presidents to go to war on their own for up to 60 to 90 days. it has nothing to do with collective judgment. it is a very dishonest -- this came at the end of the vietnam era. i think they made a mistake by saying they are asserting themselves. they are surrendering their powers. i think members of congress felt under pressure to do something,
and this is what we got. it is a terrible, terrible statute. >> i agree it is a bad statute for other reasons. i agree if you had pro-congress reviews, why cannot congress delegate its authorities to the president? i would say we tolerate those delegations and lots of areas in domestic life. is the delegation more unconstitutional than a lot of the other ones we allowed to go on every day? on vietnam, i quite take your point. even if you had my view, you still want to get congressional approval. we did recommend that the president get approval for afghanistan and iraq. there is a weird phenomenon where a congress asked us to
draft statutes for them authorizing the wars in afghanistan and iraq. it did not happen in the house, it only happened in the senate. when i went around and visited senators, the major theme i heard was, why are you making us vote on this? they did not want to vote on the iraq war if they could help it. the president more often than not would like to get congressional approval. political incentives are such they do not want to vote on it. vietnam was different. there are many people who criticize war powers who think vietnam was constitutional because of the gulf of tonkin resolution. some say lyndon johnson lied to get them to pass the statute. every year there were significant increases in the military voted by congress and appropriations. the president and congress agree
on vietnam for a long time, and congress acted every year. how did the vietnam war end? congress cut off funding, and the war ended just like that. sometimes we confuse lack of political will for some kind of constitutional defect. i think the house and senate just did not want to use that ample powers they had in vietnam. >> nixon said it was unconstitutional, and that is why he vetoed it, but for a different reason than you indicate. i do not think it says the president can do anything he wants for 60 days. it just as the constitutional powers of the president to introduce troops -- hostilities may only be exercised pursuant
to a declaration of war or national emergency created by an attack upon the united states, its territories or its armed forces. it does not say the president is authorized for 60 days to go anywhere he wants and do anything he wants. >> i forgot to mention, i think obama does not withdraw this friday, he would be the first president to actually be clearly in violation. even in kosovo, and there was a special appropriations bill, and the clinton administration said by passing that bill and giving us money, you have approved it. this friday will be the first real test if the president just says i am going to blow through the first 60 days. >> when we look at vietnam, and since then wars have been generally unpopular, i do not
think the intensity has been the same since we got rid of the draft. >> i was chief counsel of the committee when the marines went into lebanon in 1993. i think there is a misunderstanding about the purpose of the war powers act. it is to make congress register its will. it is a -- my question is why does that procedure not provide precisely what you want to have happen? you want to give the president power to act in an emergency under his judgment. when he react without authorization, we want congress to come in and say, do we agree with this or not? it would be unconstitutional to say that a no vote would require him to remove the troops. this is a political matter.
you want congress to stand up and say, are we with you or are we against you? the war powers act provides exactly that proceeds you -- procedure. congress voted to support that particular action and that probably should have voted against it. but congress registered its view. it would have a significant effect on presence deciding whether to go or not. constituents want to know, where do you come down on this issue? do you support the president or not? this procedure allows that. >> every president at election time will say i am not about to send american troops into a war. fdr did that in 1940. lyndon johnson did it in 1964.
presidents note going into war is not a signal to send at election time. the problem with the war powers resolution, congress has to act. once the present engages in military activity, all the arguments that we all know will come up. it cannot cut off funds with dark men and women in combat. -- cannot cut off funds with our men and women in combat. once you are allowed president to go out and take the initiative, your opportunity as a legislative body is pretty well taken away >> you are saying congress has not provided the president with the obvious tools that they want him to use in case of an emergency or where he thinks the national interest
is at stake? you want congress to say that in a given situation, we do not like that one. he is in a much different position. texas from his position for congress's when the president has to go and get authority. >> it is in order, you have to vote on it. >> i think technically in terms of the statute, i would agree with you, but i do not think it is going to work that way. you cannot force congress to do anything it does not want to do. >> it takes precedence in both houses, so they have to vote. >> we will see. >> there is a congressional response to this. it covers all the bases. members of congress do not want to be painted into a corner about events they cannot
foresee. it is not going to work, because they will do a work around. i assure you, there is more energy expended -- they can find more ways to get the impossible accomplished. >> they have given it to him when it was not authorized by the actual statute because they wanted people to have an outlet. it did get a vote, but it could have been blocked just as easily. this gentleman right here. >> i thought a lot of the questions brought up today were very important. the practical aspects of at the
end of the day, everyone can say congress should do this or that, but the practical reality is that they might not do anything. the question i have with regard to this matter is, when we killed osama bin laden, it was done without any congressional authority. it was done because the president did as being highly important u.s. interest that we take care of the matter. often when we engage in conflict, there is always a large debate in the media as to whether we should or should not engage. i think that detracts from the president's ability to go and do as he knows best because of all the intelligence that was passed to him. to what extent should the media -- to what extent should we entertain dialogue about the moral dilemmas of engaging when the reality is if actions were
taken early enough, we are preventing us from being able to act. should we continue to allow mass dialogue to occur or should actions be taken earlier rather than later? >> is basically confronts the libya situation where the rebels have driven into tripoli. we've probably had a good opportunity to take care of libya, but we waited for the un. >> i have not heard one person say that congressional authority would be required to go after suspected terrorists. no one to my knowledge argues that way. >> i would just say that we have a free press here. people can say whatever they want as long as it sells advertising.
>> i am going to try to get into the title 10-title 50 distinction because it is critical to what is going to happen tomorrow morning when the next situation like this comes along, if we get lucky enough to get good intelligence on more high-value targets. we are talking about a couple of different things here. i would say that what the president did, under the way they conducted the operation on bin laden, he used his title 50 authorities with a lawful finding that had been properly notified to congress. that was supported by special operations forces under title 10, but the delegated authority under title 10 went to the title 50 authority, which was superior in this matter, and the president was covered by the
finding on this. what is different about pakistan, for the first time in my living memory, a covert operation is called a covert operation for a simple reason. there is always plausible deniability. within 3 seconds of the time obama was that -- osama was dead, everybody puts their hand up and said we did it. what we have now done is taken a tool with a very good arrangement with the defense and intelligence people to take action on actionable targets, and we have now screwed up another mechanism which we are going to need tomorrow morning. that concerns me a great deal, and i am surprised nobody brought it up. >> i think the legality of the strike is based on the 9/11
resolution that was passed on september 18. it does not say he is allowed to attack any responsible for the attacks. the second point about covert action, relating back to the question from our veteran of the war of 1812. the covert action area is an example where you might like what has happened. it is unclear who has the authority to authorize covert action in the first place. i think thomas jefferson is the first president to authorize some kind of covert activity against the barbary pirates. he did on his own. he asked congress for money and they gave it to him and he did not tell them what it was for. he had to get the funding from
congress for it. the way the covert action system works is a good example of congressional-presidential cooperation that is very process oriented. it does not lead to all the recriminations we sometimes get about war powers. congress has to see some kind of finding to get a covert action blessed by congress. it's all built on the funding power. congress says you do not get any money for a covert action unless you tell us about the finding. that system seems to work in a more harmonious way that more powers. it is a good example that congress can do all this if it wants to. i think jonathan is right that all our focus on the legal issues detracts from the policy choices and the moral choices. having been a subject of this in
a smaller way, i think sometimes in the u.s. will allow these arguments about legality to detract one -- from what is a good policy for the united states. just because something is legal does not mean you should do it morally. we get tied up so much in the legality, we tend to forget about whether libya is a good war for the ninth stage, which is a basic question. >> when you are dealing with sovereign nations, territories that are set out, that is one thing. when you are dealing with the group of people that are wandering around like nomads and looking for sanctuaries and finding mischief, then you have a real problem. how do you bring some kinetic response to control them without getting into a sovereign situation. that is the duty of the title
10-title 50 operation, but it is no good if everybody is saying yes, those are our bombs. we use our military to drop bombs in a foreign country. how would we feel about that? we have trouble with nato overflights here. imagine how we would feel with boots on the ground doing that to american citizens. >> the barbary war is a good example for jefferson did go into that mediterranean. there was military activity. he came back to congress and said what i did over there, and then he said be on the line of defense, i cannot go. anything of an offensive nature must be authorized by congress. congress passed 10 statutes for jefferson and madison, and there is a senator, when clinton
wanted to go into haiti in 1994, the senator said of course he can because jefferson did with the barbary wars. i wrote a paper explaining what jefferson did. a year later, clinton wants to go into bosnia, and the senator says of course he can, thomas jefferson did with the barbary wars. >> the first attack by jefferson was not authorized. you say might have lied to congress about it, because he had a which authorized naval training exercises, and jefferson ordered them to attack the bar worry pirates which they did, and afterward he reported that our peaceful fleet had been attacked. i think it is an example of the
president acting without congressional authorization, but then congress authorized it later. the pirates at the reception. one more question. >> there is a couple of parallel issues. i am thinking of the u.s. army special forces in 1983 in el salvador. they were allowed to be advisers, but could not fire the weapons. could they call on a mission to help direct but not engage in firing? then the dustup over discovery in congress about the belfort's. some people believe they could have been used to do operations and not just collect intelligence. robert issue of categorizing things, not as covert actions,
but as something else so that -- you get my drift. advisers under kennedy. >> we have a great debate about peacekeeping operations, what i call humanitarian relief operations to help out mankind around the world. we're not talking about a war like situation with good on the ground, but they are on an errant of mercy. that is a distinctly different question, and usually it involves being invited the end. this is not usually done without they're willing or at least their diplomatic approval of coming on to our territory, because the sovereign territory is the sovereign territory, and guess we help out in lots of
ways and use military to do that does not mean we are doing it against the will of the sovereign. usually means we're doing it with the will of the sovereign. covert action -- the reason we have plausible denial as we do not have to have the discussion about upsetting the sovereign. i would say that we do not want to give up the tool because the types of things we are being asked to do around the world these days, whether or not the resolution going back to september of 2001 covered it or not in the battlefield debate, ever applies to, or all these guys, does it involve -- that it -- in matters because if you read that book that john brought out from the heritage -- wherever it came from -- there are similar versions around and available. the issue and it's as often in
their acceptance, war or in times of war. things change. it is important if you are at war or not. we took questions at the beginning of that conversation, where half the people think we are at war and half the people do not. imagine how congress feels about that. i am interested in the tools to deal with the problem. that is where i am coming from today. we're all talking about trying to work out the horrible questions and the separation of powers. i would like to have the road map. it would be wonderful if congress could react regularly, dependably and reliably. >> that is the last word. please join me in thanking our panelists. [applause]
then general james jones on the middle east peace process. finally, the swearing-in for rom a manuel, who became chicago's 55th mayor today. tonight, a look at self and privacy and a senate hearing about reports that google and apple smart phones may be tracking the location of users without their knowledge. we will hear from paul kirby. tonight at 8:00 eastern on c- span2. newt being rich and i am announcing my candidacy for the president of united states. >> follow the candidate's announcements and speeches and look back on their careers with the c-span video library.
it is what you want when you want. >> follow the house and senate when you want. congressional chronicle, with daily schedule, a full list of members, plus, a video of house and senate sessions. congressional chronicle at c- span.org/congress. >> government funding in research and development can boost the economy and the investment should be more consistent. this is 20 minutes. >> new building blocks for jobs and economic growth. they have gathered an outstanding group of participants. the topics you will address very on innovation and are central to
understanding how we can best promote growth in the long run. i will not spend much time convincing this audience of the importance of growth. the nobel prize-winning economist robert lucas wrote that once one starts thinking about the element is hard to think about anything else. i do not think i would go quite that far, but it is true that relatively small differences in the rates of economic growth maintained over a sustained. -- period have enormous implications. the growth rate of 215% per year doubles the average living standards income one generation. then a modestly lower rate leads to a doubling and living standards in about 47 years, two generations.
compound interest can be powerful. factors contribute to changes in living standards for different sectors of the population, including chest and wages and rights of labour market participation. if output per person increases more rapidly, the prospects for greater and more prosperity are significantly enhanced. over long spans of time economic growth reflect a number of determinants including increases in workers' skills, rate of saving and capital accumulation, and institutional factors. innovation and technological change our central to the growth process. over the past 200 years, innovation, a technical advance, and investment in capital goods and body new technologies have transformed economies around the world.
advances inecades t semiconductor technologies have radically changed many aspects of our lives. tweet remarks at the beginning. technological developments further in the past, electrification, or a coolie revolutionary. in addition, research has highlighted the role played by intangible capital, such as knowledge embodied in the workforce and brand names. this research suggests progress and the accumulation of intangible capital have accounted for well over half of the increase in output per hour in united states during the past several decades. innovation does not -- has not only lead to more efficient production methods, but has
induced changes in how businesses are organized and managed, highlighting the connections between new ideas and methods and organizational structures needed to implement them. in the 19th century, the development of their road and the telegraph, along with a host of other technologies, were associated with the rise of large businesses with national reach. as transportation and commission technologies developed further in the 20th-century, multi national proportions became feasible and more prevalent. economic policy affects innovation and long 1 grow in many ways. a simple macro economic environment, some public finances, and well functioning financial labour and product markets all support innovation, tax,rowth, as tdo effective trade, and regulatory policies.
protection of intellectual property rights and promotion of research and development promote innovation and technological change were directly. in the remainder of my remarks, i will focus on one component of policy which is government support for research and development. the effective commercial application of new ideas and falls much more that your research. many other factors are relevant including the extent of market competition, intellectual property regime, and the availability of financing. that said the tendency of the markups -- markets apply to a little of certain rational for government action, and no matter how good the policy environment, big new ideas are often rooted in well executed r and d. bennett talk about the rationale for government roles in the processes. governments in many countries
support scientific and technical research. in addition to the governments of the united states and many other countries run their own research facilities, including those focused on not military applications, such as health. the rationale for the government role is that absence such intervention the private market would not adequately supply certain types of research. the arguments, which applies to the fundamental research, is that the full economic value of a scientific advance is unlikely to -- to its discoverer, especially if the knowledge can be replicated at low cost. james watson and francis crick received a minute fraction of the benefits that flow from their discovery of dna. for many people who are able to
benefit of research done by others, then the total or social return to research may be higher on average than the private return to those where the costs and risks of innovation. as a result, market forces will lead to an under investment in r and d, which provides a rationale for government and from it -- intervention. when possible policy response to the market problem would be to substantially strengthen the intellectual property rights regime. for example, by granting developers of new ideas claims to the economic benefits of their discoveries. perhaps by extending and expanding patent rights. this approach has drawbacks of its own and that strict limitations on the free use of new ideas would inhibit further research and development, a valuable commercial of a cane.
-- and valuable commercial applications. governments have turned the direct support of r and d activities. the rationale for government support of r and d would be weakened if governments had performed consistently poorly in this sphere. there have been disappointments. for example, about the surge in federal tibet -- investment in energy technology in the 1970 's, a sheep less than innovators had hoped. federal research initiatives and government support enabling the emergence of new technologies in areas that include agriculture, chemicals, health care, and information technology. a case that has and what not committed and studied is the development of hybrid seed corn
in united states. other examples the received critical federal was worth our gene splicing, techniques that open up the techniques of genetic engineering, and a lithium-ion battery. recent research on the government's so-called war on cancer initiated by president nixon in 1971 finds the effort has produced a very high social rate of return, notwithstanding its failure to achieve its goal. what about the present proof discover? the question is not easily answered. it involves a number of the judge was about public priorities. as background, consideration of recent trends and expenditures on r and d in the united states
and the rest of the world should be instructive. in the united states, total r and d spending has been relatively stable over the past three decades at roughly 2.5% of the gross domestic product. this apparent stability unmasks important trends. first, since the 1970 cost of r and d spending by the federal government has trended down as a share of gdp while the share done by the private sector has increased. second, the share of r and d spending targeted basic research as opposed to more applied has been trending down. these trends are related, as government r and d spending tends to be more heavily weighted toward science. the declining emphasis on basic research is concerning because
fundamental research is ultimately the source of most innovation, albeit with long lags. indeed, some economists have argued because of the high social return to basic research, expanded government support for r and d could over time significantly lived -- and boost economic growth. that said, in a time of fiscal stringency, the congress and the administration wanted carefully weigh priorities as they make budgetary decisions. another argument made for spending government support for r and d is the need to keep pace with attendance -- with advances ies.nother country's tra the transfer of technology is through trade, investment, and the activities of multinational corporations. to be sure, r and d spending
remains concentrated in most developed countries. in recent years, spending on r and d has merged sharply in china and india. spending for r and d by china has increased rapidly in absolute terms, although recent estimates show its spending to be smaller relative to gdp than in the united states. reflecting the increased research activities in emerging economies, the share of world are in the expenditures by member nations of the oecd has fallen relative to nonmember nations which tend to be less developed. a similar trend is evident with respect to science and engineering work forces. how should policy makers think about this increasing globalization of r and d spending? on the one hand, the diffusion of scientific research
throughout the world potentially benefits everyone by increasing the pace of innovation globally. the development of the polio vaccine in the united states in the 1950's provided enormous benefits the people globally. moreover in a globalized economy product and process innovations in one country can lead to employment opportunities and improved goods and services around the world. on the other hand, in some circumstances, the location of r and d activity can matter. technological prowess may help a country reap the financial benefits of leadership in a strategic industry. a cutting edge scientific or technological center can create a variety of spillovers that promote innovation, quality, skills acquisition, and productivity in industries. such spillovers arteries in the high-tech firms located in close to -- in clusters near
universities. to the extent that countries gain from leadership in these industries or from spillovers, the case for government support of r and d within the country is much stronger. the economic arguments for government support and innovation imply government should focus on fostering basic or foundational research. the most applied and commercially relevant research is likely to be done by the private sector, as firms have strong incentives to determine what the market demands. if the government decides to foster basic are andy, what policy -- it use? a number of tools exist, including direct funding of research facilities, krantz to private-sector researchers, contracts forced the seven projects, and tax incentives. many choices must be made about
how the structure of the civic programs. economists note less than we would like about how to best channel public support. it is good news that new work is being done on this topic, including initiatives on science policy that a been started by the national science foundation. the characteristics of the research to the support of our imports for the choice of a policy tool. direct government support or contact other research may make the most sense if the project is highly focused and large scale. examples of this research are the space program and the construction and operation of atom-smashing operations. outside of such cases, a more
decentralized model that relies on the ideas and initiatives of individual researchers or groups may be most effective. grants to or contracts with researchers are the typical vehicle for such an approach. the success of the centralized models for government support depends on the quality of execution. some critics believe that funding agencies have been too cautious, focusing on a limited number of low risk projects. supporting multiple approaches to a given problem increases the chance of finding a solution. it also increases the opportunities for cooperation or for constructive competition. the challenge the policy makers is to encourage experimentation and a greater diversity approaches.
government support for innovation will be more effective it is thought of as a long run investment. gestation lasts from basic research to commercial application to the benefits can be very long. the internet revolution of the 1990's was based on scientific investments made in the 1970's. today's widespread commercialization of biotechnology on keep research findings developed in the 1950's. governments that choose to provide support for r and d are likely to get better results if that support is stable and long term oriented, according to a pattern of feast and famine. government support for and the presumes sufficient national capacity to engage in research
at the desired skill. that capacity in turn depends and partly on the supply of qualified scientists, engineers, and other technical workers. although the system of higher education in the united states remains among the finest in the world, numerous concerts have been raised about this country possibility to ensure adequate supplies of highly skilled workers. some observers suggest that bottlenecks in the system limit the number of students receiving undergraduate degrees in science and engineering. surveys of stinting intentions in the united states show that the number of students seeking to make your insight exceeds the number accommodated by a wide moderate and waitlists have trended up relative to those and other fields, as have the time required to graduate with a science or engineering degree.
the share of undergraduate degrees awarded in science and engineering has been stable. at the same time, critics of k- 12 education have argued that not enough is being done to encourage and support student interest in science and mathematics. taken together these trends suggest more could be done to increase the number of u.s. students entering scientific and engineering professions. at least when viewed from the perspective as a single nation, emigration is another path for an increasing supply of highly skilled scientists and researchers. the technological leadership of the united states was and continues to be built in central park on the contributions of foreign-born scientists and engineers, permanent immigrants, and hosting in the country for a time. in a country to the notion of how trained in a great -- highly trained immigrants replace
workers, those who come to the united states enhance productivity and employment opportunities of those already here, reflecting gains from interaction corp. and from the development of critical masses of researchers in technical areas. a technological progress and innovation around a world would be enhanced by luring national barriers to international scientific cooperation and collaboration. in the abstract, economists have identified justification for government policies to promote our and the activities. especially those related to basic research. in practice we know less than we would like about which policies work best. a reasonable strategy for now may be to continue to use a mix of policies to support r and d while taking pains to encourage drivers and even competing approaches by the scientists and engineers who receive support. we should keep in mind that funding are in the activity is
on the part of what the government can do to foster innovation. insuring a sufficient supply of individuals with science and engineering skills to support for promoting innovation, and this need raises questions about education policy as well as immigration policy. other key policy issues include the definition and enforcement of intellectual property rights and the setting of technical standards. finally, as somebody who spent a lot time on entering the economy, let me also put in a plug for more on finding better ways to measure innovation, r and d activity, and intangible capital. we will be more likely to comply -- to promote actively if we can measure its more effectively. thank you. i wish you the best at this conference on a very important topic. [applause]
>> thank you very much, and we can all say we are deeply plunged into the topic and we are ready to go. >> tomorrow, maryland representative don edwards of the gazette reduction in the house progressive caucus proposal, then michael still talks about the republican presidential field. after that , sahar aziz discusses the work on the office of rights and civil liberties. you can see "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern here on c- span. this weekend on c-span2, the gaithersburg festival, live with offers on the oil spill, the
plus, a panel discussion on the book industry. then frederick kemp on the standoff regarding the berlin wall. get our schedules and he mailed directly to you. signup for our booktv alert. >> inside, a new and returning house and senate members, with contact information, including twitter addresses and committee assignments, and information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. >> here's a look at this morning's shuttle launch. the last mission for endeavour as it delivers an times as the
handoff has occurred. >> 25. 20. >> firing chain is armed. suppression of the water systems is armed. >> 8, 7, 6 -- 4, 3, 2, 1 -- 0 and liftoff for the final launch of endeavor, expanding our lives in spades. -- in space. >> roger, rolling, endeavor. >> houston is now controlling. endeavour begins the heads-down position.
>> three engines now throttling down as a endeavour passes to the area of maximum dynamic pressure on the vehicle in the low atmosphere. approaching end of the first minute into the flight. >> endeavour, the go at throttle up. >> go at throttle up. >> endeavour is already traveling 3,000 miles per hour at an altitude of 11 miles down range from the kennedy space center. now 12 miles. at liftoff, and never fully fuelled wailed 4.5 million
pounds. it has already lost half that week. the last -- the next event is the separation of the twin solid boosters. they are burning 11,000 pounds per fuel per second. standing by for separation of the solid rocket boosters. the onboard guidance system has done its job of setting out in the dispersion introduced at mr. separation. the order is traveling 3,200 miles per hour, down range 50 miles democrats all systems in
goods chain. three good hydraulic systems, of salary power units, and fuel cells. the fuel cells provide heart all onboard systems. >> two engines down. >> endeavour can reach a landing site in case of an engine failure. this view looking down the external fuel tank. the order on the top, as endeavour continues to power its way into orbit, traveling 4,000 miles per hour, down range 90 miles, up to 50 miles. three minutes, 15 seconds into the flight.
all three main engines still looking in good shape. hydraulic and electrical systems on board the order -- the orbiter -- >> endeavour, -return. >> -- negative return. >> endeavour can now no longer return to the kennedy space center. four minutes, 20 seconds into the flight. endeavour travels 5,500 miles per hour, altitude, 63 miles an downrange, 186 miles along o
in altitude. a good operating system for writing: to all the systems in the vehicle, traveling in the order is mark kelly. rounding out the crew is mike fink. endeavour can reach orbit on two engines should one fail. all three are still performing as planned. down on the mid deck -- added to the international space station for the first time, and the others making their first voyage on the space shuttle after flying to the international space station aboard soyuz spacecraft previously.
>> endeavour, single engine up three. >> roger. >> endeavour could reach a transatlantic site on just one engine. all three engines are in good shape. >> endeavour, single engine saragossa, 104. >> several calls there. endeavour can reach a safe orbit on two engines now. the guidance system is rolling endeavour to optimize satellite communications. flight controllers reporting they are in good shape.
>> the shutdown plan is not all. >> copy, shut down plan is not. -- is nominal. >> endeavour, single engine press 1 04. >> endeavour can reach orbit in one -- on one engine. the three main engines are flowing fuel through their power systems at a rate equivalent to draining an average backyard swimming pool in 25 seconds. seven minutes, 20 seconds into the flight. endeavour is traveling 13,500 miles per hour.
flight dynamics reported -- >> some of the video from endeavour after liftoff this morning. it will be dropping off supplies for the laboratory used in the post-shuttle era. coming up next at 3:00, a panel at the fourth circuit of appeals heard a challenge to the new health care law. the state's attorney general filed the case on behalf of virginia residents who do not want to buy health insurance. this is 50 minutes. >> we have no quarrel to get into the merits of whether the affordable care at -- we
believe liberty university plaintiffs have standing. everson another case, it has been clear that it is no part of the stake cost to the power to enforce a citizen's right with respect to the relations with the federal government cricke. [unintelligible] virginia business such thing here. it challenges the individual mandate. that challenge falls within the scope of the bar. virginia argued that passing a statute changes -- >> normally a state has an interest in defending its own loss from federal preemption. why is this effort -- why is the situation different here? >> the state is intervening and
using himself as a shield against some federal law that is coming in. hear what the state is doing is different. they have taken a lawsuit, instead of filing it in the court, on to the legislature, passed the statute, the express their disagreement with a federal law, and then filed a lawsuit using that statute as its basis. >> with the state that did that with respect in the statute enacted by congress lack credibility? i do not see limiting principle here. how on can it be stating if all it takes is a set of state -- >> we said if he adopted the standing it would allow a state
that was opposed to the war in afghanistan to say our citizens should be exempt and file a lawsuit on the basis, or a face citizen -- or if a state does not like their citizens paying such as turning taxes. [unintelligible] >> it is not as though the attorney general -- the governor decided -- the act of enacting legislation in the state is an act by a sovereign state to perpetuate certain rights on its citizens -- you cannot just let in every instance. [unintelligible] does that not seem a bit more
when the state goes through a legislative process, the governor, and they actually signed alon law? when that happens, to allow them to come in sibley litigating the harm of it is it just gets to the merits. not mean to denigrate the hard work and the legitimate efforts that went into the state statute, but my worry is the fact that any state statute, including one about afghanistan, then your question is, what is the harm that you've i think the supreme court has been very clear that that is not a proper way to look at -- the courts have limited jurisdiction for reason, and in allowing such losses does inject a state in these courts, the federal court,
in abstract political disputes that are best handled outside of federal court rooms. there's no problem getting to the merits. liberty university as steny, but here, what the state is doing is coming in and saying we have standing to protect the rights of our citizens. [unintelligible] the lead -- >> the legislature passes this as a -- tool? [unintelligible] i think we are taking a lot on your representation of what this legislation is. >> we could look to the text of the statute, and i think the text does not do much more than essentially -- for these purposes -- it does other things -- it says no employer shall be required to offer insurance.
in virginia, it is absolutely free to enforce that. every day of the week against any private employer that provides that. the federal law does not conflict with that. these are two ships passing in the night. virginia is free to enforce that. what virginia is not free to do is to say that expresses a preference that our citizens should not have to pay individual responsibility, not abide by the of that responsibility -- >> i thought you were maintaining the had no standing, but this legislation does not even control, doesn't even meet the challenge federal statute of >> it does in the sense that the text goes further -- i was referring to the non-lawson aspects of it. -- non-lawsuit aspects of it.
>> how would virginia and forced this statute other than by bringing this lawsuit? >> as i understand my friend, he says they could enforce it -- county employers -- i'm not sure if that is true or not. >> a county or city cannot do anything unless the legislature says he can do that, so they do not need this statute to prohibit -- nor full or newport news -- forced their employees to buy health insurance. i ask again -- how would virginia in forces that it other than by bringing this lawsuit wh? the solicitor general is the
answer that question. >> i think the central point to you is as it chooses vs. mellon that cleared limit on the article 3 court and does not allow the entertaining of losses such as this, which injects federal courts in tuesday versus federal disputes, but rather state vindicating the rights of their citizens. [unintelligible] seizing on that language -- that the basis -- am i reading that correctly? >> that is, and that is why -- a snap decision is one about -- >> are you saying that was a snap decision?
[laughter] >> that was the decision not about federal statute that the state was attacking. they wanted to enforce the federal statute. they liked the federal statute, and what the mellon bar is about, when the state says we represent the people, that is up for a writ for the federal plan because the united states also represents if people. >> at least in suit against the united states. >> exactly. they do not have jurisdiction in this realm. there are no other questions on standing. >> [unintelligible] does indicate that the state has a sovereign interest in ensuring that legal code is being followed, and your distinction there would be that it applies,
dealing with private citizens, not with the federal government? >> that is correct. those are cases in which this thing is say there is a shield we want to protect our statute against someone who is trying -- >> and in the massachusetts vs epa case, [unintelligible] was it sovereign interest? >> it was about the coastal lands of messages is that would be harmed. there's a critical difference between allowing the state to protect their citizens from the operation of federal statute, which is what mellon per higgins. -- prohibits. in massachusetts vs. epa -- you
allowing citizens to assert their rights under federal law? i think you get into a problem that you have opened the door for every state to file every conceivable losses. >> massachusetts had a statutory standing with the epa. [unintelligible] >> if the court has questions on the merits -- >> bottom line is the situation where even health the state police a federal stop ships -- that is unconstitutional, that unless it has a sovereign interest, it cannot do anything under this doctrine? >> that is precisely right, judge. i would put out that individuals who bring losses -- i should have said earlier -- exactly, and there's a
difference when states get involved, and that is what what massachusetts vs. mellon for hits. >> if it should include that the other side as positive in [unintelligible] >> i do not think we do. first and foremost this is -- also the distinction between inactivity and actively also less often breaks down into nomenclature where we could really debate. how does the court get to calling this an activity? what was it that led you to their " i could imagine an argument that because the central question, and this is something -- that is just a word
they happen to be using to describe the facts in a given case. they use it to -- the relevant question is, is there a substantial effect on interstate commerce that is gone on, and here when you're talking about $43 billion of money being externalized in the form of uncompensated payment, that is a substantial economic effect in the way that 75 rules -- many orders of magnitude, an effect on the interstate economy. >> my problem with that would activity -- ve bear with me. what can we do with the word "regulation," because there is
no great concern here, and the research we have done, and done in other cases, you have to deal with it, that is always assumed that there is a predicate for it to be regulated activity. the regulation is the power that congress has in regulating, and that is written in the constitution. it is a constitutional issue. regulation, to apply a predicate to be regulated. all we have is the activity credited. what do you do? >> it was not in the breeze of this court. i would say several things. i'm not sure that regulation is a poor is -- that regulation
presupposes activity. the regulation that forces people have knapsacks and guns -- a well regulated militia. i'm not sure that supposition is true. our fundamental point for you here is you cannot in need to get into any of these interesting questions about can the government can compel the purchase of a good. that is being purchased every day by citizens in this country. the question is financing. theirn we regulate means of payment of $40 billion ? he economic attacks carried -- huge economic effects. [unintelligible]
>> before you leave, i want to understand something ticket there was a case -- he thought about -- wyoming was against the united states and was dealing with a legal code, and the 10th circuit hopped on that language, sufficient injury, in fact, a distinguished that. in the wyoming case, the state statute said certain convictions shelby expunge an order to restore their rights, and the federal role said you cannot expunge those convictions. course of that case, thousands of permits have been issued by wyoming authorities by the state for people to carry guns, and so there was a regulatory enforcement, and what wyoming should be saying is our enforcement is being disrupted by the federal statute.
it is quite as -- it is causing harm to them as a city as a sovereign, not to an individual. if you read the case in the other way, as i think my friends a look, you can get to the warning that judge davis warned about. >> thank you. >> may it please the court, the proposition that all the cases that recognize sovereign standing against individuals, wyoming brought a declaratory judgment action against the united states in new york vs. the united states. new york brought declaratory judgment action against the united states. oregon's sued a federal
official, south carolina city attorney general, and there was a recognition that south carolina could sue the united states in its original jurisdiction in the supreme court. [unintelligible] with the enactment of a statute in which the state was trying to ensure [unintelligible] >> everybody is focused on a lot on wyoming. we have a site from 56 circuits where there is sovereign standing in the law -- 5 or 6
circuits. >> the the only one where it is a declaratory judgment is wyoming, but there may be one in ohio. >> this gives you a chance to argue. >> the basis in wyoming is that in essence there was a sovereign interests. they were already doing these things and then this all comes around and keep the state from doing what it was doing. is that the 10 to massachusetts vs. epa? -- is that akin to massachusetts vs. epa? >> there are quasi-sovran standings. massachusetts has proprietary standing because of its coastline and so forth.
it recognizes full sovereign standing, which only a sovereign has, and that rises in defense of its code of laws. >> it set out the categories. >> how would be good attorney general of the commonwealth of virginia in force this state statutes other than by bringing this lawsuit? >> he would enforce against anybody who was breaking into was a private party. >> how would a private party by late this?
-- violate this? >> so if a corporation in north folk said to john brown, i will hire you, but as a condition of your hire, you have to accept this health insurance plan that we provide. is that would you are saying, they could not do that? >> they could not do that if they terminated the employee -- the only way could be enforced against the federal government -- >> i am asking for enforcement against anybody anywhere anytime. i am having difficulty understanding how this statute could be enforced. >> it could be enforced by injunction by the attorney
general and by any private party is harmed by the requirement of having insurance. >> so john brown says i want the job, but i do not want the insurance. it is the court going to retire -- require john brown to pay for it? the employee provides a uniform, a 90-minute lunch hour, and health insurance. >> the reason it matters at all is that at one point, the united states was claiming that this was not a lot of general application but that it does other thing. it does create standing. the reason we know that, there
is no massachusetts vs. mellon bar if a state is defending its law code. >> is that your view that the state could challenge any statute, any federal statute in court as long as you take first step lost disagreeing with that? if you could just answer yes or no. >> the answer is yes. >> that could challenge any federal statute on the books. >> in all probability, the maryland tax statute was probably created in order to challenge the constitutionality of the bank of the united states. the fact of the matter is that the alternative to the parade of hypothetical -- >> that was the question, and
your answer is yes. >> the flip side of that is no state could sue the other. that is not even with the briefing says. the secretary says it is an uncontroversial that the state has standing within the constitutionality of the statute. [unintelligible] >> i want to ask this question and make sure i understand it. mellon had to stand for something. there was a reason as to why -- as i understand your position is to get around mellon, the state can cancel the statute and then basically go in and do that for its citizens and basically do something for the citizens that
the citizens can do for themselves, but the state chooses to do it for them. >> the state is not doing it for the citizens. maintaining federalism indirectly serves the liberty interest of all citizens, but the interest, the injury is a sovereign entry of the lobbying set aside by the enactment of a federal law if in fact the federal law is valid. the reason we know that gets us out from under massachusetts vs. mellon is because it said that the challenge on 10th amendment grounds was too abstract, because the state had not been required to do anything or to give away anything. the second way we know that is that in 1926 in new jersey, our
statute is required to give way to the federal statute. we are required to give away our law. >> there is no evidence and no one is even suggesting that. >> no one has violated it. >> of course it can be violated. anybody that requires a citizen of virginia to except circumstances stated in the statute, that violates the statute. >> if a high school teacher in north arlington lives in north arlington but is a teacher in the district of columbia, does your statute constrain -- >> i really would like to call
the court's attention to new jersey vs. sgt. they are the supreme court said the reason there was not standing is there is no showing that has determined on or is about to proceed with any project or is now taking or is about to take any definite action respected of any of its sovereign rights. although new jersey argued -- the court lacked power until the state start interest -- until they are given or are about to be given some practical application and effect. so when we passed the virginia
law, we gave our claims of sovereign power application and effect, because the purpose of that act was to assert the state competency to regulate and occupy that field of individual insurance mandates. that gives us a ticket to federal court. >> if the virginia legislature should test the law that says no produces and should be required to pay social security, would that be the ability to challenge that? >> they would have standing to lose just like they have standing to lose in wyoming. >> you mean the state in the sovereign capacity. could oregon passed the statute tomorrow saying we disagree with the national immigration act? >> they have standing to lose. a coast guard is not to be
dedicated. i don't know why some sort of lautrec to pass a law, because as you point out, it is often very arduous to pass a law, and in fact, this law passed overwhelmingly in two chambers controlled by different political parties. >> the commonwealth -- could the commonwealth to more easily and this a day of the rise but attorney general to challenge the federal statutes? >> we cannot give ourselves -- we have to have a sovereign act. the black side of this is, it just as arizona has been sued for passing a law, the united states could sue the state for passing a lot and try to get in validated and between kosar, it works both ways. i just do not see how it is even
a permissible argument to make after mitchell and south carolina and new york vs. united states that there is not sovereign standing. >> i think i see how your connecting this. the issue that seems to keep coming back to me is that when you look at the individual mandate passed by the federal government, that in and of itself, without anything else, has nothing to do with the state. that is an individual mandate. and then this statute is made and it creates, in your view, the interest. >> the interest is constitutional. >> without this statue, what is your argument that the state then has standing?
>> there was a state statutes but in all probability there is nothing left of the standing of massachusetts vs. mellon, but wanted to make sure betook ourselves out from under it if it was still a good case. that is why we looked at the language about the state not being asked to do anything. the attorney general did not pass this law. the attorney general is responsible under virginia code for defending the law when it is passed. >> my question is, there is no statute. all have is this federal individual mandate. what is the legal argument that mellon does not apply, other than you saying is overruled? >> melon is a transitional decision. it has two aspects. moderns standing doctrine is
coming into existence just at that time. it harkens back to the cherokee indian case in a reconstruction case, to say that the political question doctrine, unless the supreme court brings it back in the second circuit nuisance case. we look at modern standing doctrine and all requires is that there be an injury that is regrettable. that is the whole scope of modern standing doctrine. >> the essence was that the state could not file an actual exhibit of the citizen if the act itself is no more than an action that puts a mandate on individuals. i think we can agree on that. at that point, your point seems
to be that you do not need this statute. >> i am safer with the statute. >> i need to have that distinction. if you are relying on the statute, then i can focus on that, but if you tell me that even without the statute you have standing, i need to know that. >> i do not want to contradict -- i am rested my claim on my statutes. >> so this statued, before this there is no opportunity, no standing, but the statute created it. >> here is where we are.
i am not dealing with the 10th amendment, which is absolutely correct. is this a valid statute? what i want to deal with -- if you took me in the first instance and said i am not going to say we have standing, but resting on the statute, all that matters is that the statute created it because it did not exist before that. we can talk about sovereignty of the state, which i am not going to disagree with, but i am forced to deal with this doctrine of mellon. >> i would look at new jersey vs. sgt. the federal government said it is not a reserve power.
i don't know why under modern standing doctrine that is not the end of it. all those cases that we side with said that it is the end of it. we were happy to have the statute so we did say mellon does not apply. i would like to explore an aspect of the merit argument if i may. i want to agree with judge davis that i think where this case comes down is that the necessary and proper part that provides the rule of decision in this case. remember what we know from the majority opinion, there is a
federal is a limit on the necessary and proper clause. all a limited times the power that would destroy a structural federalism by creating a federal abuse power are outside of the necessary and proper clause. hamilton said at the new york convention that -- >> [unintelligible] >> the issue at comstock was because of the purple law supported by so many different enumerated powers. i would like to end with one note going back to the standing. hamilton is quoted in lopez as saying that the federal courts were created to sort out the conflicting claims of power
between the state and federal governments, and justice o'connor talks at length about how that has been done repeatedly throughout our history. if we are going to be a government of unlimited powers, you have to have a forum to sort it out and if federal court is not the forum, there is no forum. >> you need to put the boots on the ground. we can talk about general principles. sometimes when i read constitutional principles, you read the case law and it sets it up a little differently. what we are dealing with on the standings issue here, in deep melon case, if you do not have this sovereign -- you have an
enumerated one independent of the statute, then the statute creates one. then the question becomes, is it proper for a state to create standing by enacting this action? that is the issue of want to address as opposed to writing something that has a high and lofty aim of trying to speak to a lot of definitions. we are limited to dealing with what the law is. >> i am not running away from the statute creates standing. when the state purports to act in its sovereign capacity, if it collides with the federal government, it has invariably an inescapably set up the
collision that creates the standing. with respect to massachusetts vs. mellon, that case was decided and every single sovereign standing case that has come down since is contrary to it. i do not think the solicitor general of the united states can successfully argue that the limits placed on massachusetts in that case where it had done nothing, it was just claiming abstractly that it did not like what the fed produce. i think we can say that case provides a rule of decision that prevents us from asserting our sovereign standing in this case. >> your cause of action here is authorized by the declaratory judgment statute but actually a
rises by implication under the supremacy clause and the 10th amendment? >> the supreme court has said of this grim because and the 10th amendment -- the supremacy clause and the 10th amendment or an answer to has the power. it gives rise to the call to action and clearly creates a federal question, and therefore cannot assert it as a federal question under the declaratory judgment act and as an injunction. >> i think your answer is yes. >> thank you.
>> the commonwealth argument raises the prospect that index federal courts into state and federal disputes. the war in iraq and afghanistan is an example, and the supreme court in the mellon case put a stop to that and says no, and our room, you cannot do this if you are bringing a lawsuit on behalf of trying to protect your citizens. i understand the impulse that there should be a way to get to the merits on important constitutional issues. here there is absolutely clear standing and liberty and nobody is condensed -- contesting that. >> every case since then has not gone in that way.
>> it has not been overruled. i think it stands for the fundamental principle about the limited role of the supreme court. another case where the state of maryland had imposed a tax on financial institutions including the bank of the united states. that was one in which there was a sovereign interest. that did not come into the court and said they are protest -- protecting their citizens. hear, the commonwealth is coming in and not telling him something that directly affects them by the employer responsibility provision. they are challenging the
individual responsibility. >> i was asking about the wyoming case. there is a whole string of cases that deal with legal codes. >> i am not sure -- precisely which ones he is referring to. none of them are ones in which the state is coming in and protecting the rights of citizens the way that virginia is here. rather they are trying to protect their coats which have independent bodies of enforcement. you had asked me to think harder about the word regulate. congress can regulate as part of its broader and necessary and proper powers. even if you were to say that the
congress of laws regulating inactivity, something with which we disagree, i think that cases like these suggest that the congress can regulate in that area. congress is a single state. >> we are talking about can you regulate something that is not an activity. >> the fundamental point is that the test is, is there a substantial effect on commerce?
limited principles mapped onto what [unintelligible] i think they are quite clear that congress can do things beyond the square text of the constitution, in terms of the word regulate, as long as they fill in something that would otherwise be an obstacle to legislation. congress has a broad power to fill in all the necessary gaps that otherwise would not be there. >> i was trying to look at something that would be close to this that has actually been examined by the court. the closest thing is cases about the child support recovery act.
the holy of those cases is when there is a child-support order that comes out of state court, you can have a federal statutes which goes after the father or mother, whoever is subject to the order, and requires that person to pay if the person is in their state. you are requiring activity. >> the primary argument is that we are not in that ball game at all. we are in the ball game of congress regulating activity,
which is everyone being in the health-care market. the question is how to regulate their payments. how are they going to pay for it? >> we would have at least a commerce clause argument if they require everybody to buy it. for whatever reason, they did not do that. so we do not have that situation. we have instead what we have. >> that may be done for any number of policy reasons, to give people more choice, and so on. the test for this court cannot be is there some other way to do it that might sidestep a potential constitutional challenge.
it goes all the way back to common stock. >> we do think there is activity. the necessary and proper clause provides the authority for congress to fill in gaps even for things that do not fall within the text of the enumerated powers itself. >> did you agree with what congress has done here, a summary of payments that are going to be made in the future? >> this is about financial transactions, money and payments. >> thank you very much. >> we will come down and reece
the lawyers and then take a very brief recess. >> here is a look at our prime- time schedule on c-span. starting at 8 eastern, remarks from paul ryan on his plan to overhaul the medicare system to help deal with rising healthcare costs. then a discussion on cia interrogations' and the role they played in the operation that killed osama bin laden. after that, former national security adviser general james jones on the middle east peace process and u.s.-pakistan relations after bin laden's death. tonight a look at cellphone privacy and a senate hearing this past week about reports that google and apple smart phones may be tracking the location of users without their knowledge. we will hear from paul kirby. you can watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2.
rahm emanuel sworn in as the mayor of chicago. he talked about his plan to improve the chicago school system and ways to create more jobs. this is half an hour. [applause] >> raise your right and repeat after me. i, rahm emanuel, do solemnly swear that i will support the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of illinois, and that i will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of mayor of the city of chicago, according to the best of my abilities. >> congratulations. [cheers and applause]
>> honored guests, mr. vice president, dr. baden, mayor daley, members of the city council, and other elected officials, residents, and friends of chicago. today more than any other time in our history, more than any other place in our country, the city of chicago is ready for change. [applause] for all the parents will serve the school system that expects every school student to earn a diploma, for all the neighbors who deserve to walk home on safer streets, for all the taxpayers who deserve a city government that is more effective and cost less, and for all the people in the hardest
working city in america who deserve a strong economy so they can find jobs or create jobs, this is your day. [applause] as your new mayor, it is an honor to fight for the change we need and a privilege to lead the city we love. we have much to do. we should first knowledge how far we have come. a generation ago, people were writing chicago off as a dying city. they said our neighborhoods were a livable, our schools were the worst in the nation, and our politics have become so divisive, we were referred to as beirut on the lake. when richard daley took office as mayor 22 years ago, he
challenged all of us to lower our voices and to raise our sights. chicago is a different city today than the one mayor daley inherited, thanks to all he did. [applause] this is a magnificent place where we gather today as a living symbol of that transformation. back then, this was an abandoned rail yard. a generation later, what was once a nagging urban eyesore is now a world-class urban park. through mayor daley's vision, his determination, his leadership, this place, like our
city, was reborn. we are much greater city because of a lifetime of service that mayor daley and first lady maggie daley have given us. [applause] nobody ever beloved chicago more or serve it better than richard daley. now, mr. mayor, and for ever more, chicago loves you back. [applause] i have big shoes to fill, and i could not have taken on this challenge without amy, my first love, and our new first lady.
and our children. [applause] i want to thank my parents, who gave me the opportunity to get a good education and whose values have guided me through life. i also want to thank obama, who turned our nation around, and who understood -- who love chicago so much she understood by wanted to come home and get our city moving again. [applause] new times demy -- demand new answers. old problems cry out for better results. this morning we leave behind the old ways and old divisions and began a new day for chicago. i am proud to lead the city united in common purpose and driven by, and thirst for change. to do that, we must face the truth. it is time to take on the challenges that threaten the
very future of our city. the quality of our schools, the safety of our streets, the cost and effectiveness of city government, and the urgent need to create jobs of the future right here in the city of chicago. the decisions we make in the next two or three years will determine what chicago will look like in the next 20 or 30. in shaping that future, our children and their schools must come first. [applause] there are some great success stories in our schools. wonderful, imaginative teachers and administrators who pour their hearts into their mission and inspire students to learn and succeed. i honor those educators. i want to lift them up, support them, and make in the standard
for the chicago public school system. let us also recognize the magnitude of the challenge and the distance we must go before we can declare that the chicago public schools or what they should beat. today, our school system only graduates half of our kids. with one of the shortest school days and years in the country, we even shortchange those who earn a diploma. by high school graduation, a student in houston has been in the classroom and equivalent of three years longer than it students in chicago, even when they both started kindergarten on the very same day. our legislature in springfield has taken a historic first step and i personally want to thank them and all those in the illinois general assembly,
members from both parties, who took the courageous and critical vote. finally chicago will have the tools we need to give our school children to schools they deserve. [applause] a logger school day and year on par with other major cities. reformed tenure to help us keep good teachers and pay them better. each child has a chance, one chance at a good education. every single one of them deserves the very best we can provide. i am encouraged that the governor will act soon to make these reforms a reality for our children. [applause] to lead our efforts in chicago, we have a courageous new school ceo and a strong and highly qualified new school board with zero tolerance for the status
quo and a proven track record to back it up recorded as some have noted, including amy, i am not a patient man. when it comes to improving our schools, i will not be a patient mayor. my responsibility is to provide our children with highly qualified and motivated teachers, and i will work day and night to meet that obligation. let us be honest. for teachers to succeed, they must have parents as partners. to give our children the education they deserve, parents must get off the sidelines and involved with their child's education. the most important door for a child's education is the front door of that home. nothing i do at the schools can ever replace that. working together, we can create a seamless partnership, from the
classroom to the family room, to help our children learn and succeed. we will do our part, and parents, we need you to do yours. [applause] second, we must make our streets safer. chicago has always had the build of the big city with the heart of a small town. that art is being broken as our children continue to be victims of violence. some in their homes, some on their porches, some on their way to and from school. i visited a memorial in roseland, one that lists the names of children who have been killed by gun violence. this memorial is only a few years old. over 220 names and it has already run out of space.
there are 150 more names yet to be added. i want you to think about that. think about what that means. memorials are society's most powerful tribute to its highest values and ideals. courage, patriotism, sacrifice. what kind of society have we become when we find ourselves paying tribute not only to soldiers and police officers, but to children who are just playing on the block? what kind of society have we become aware when the memorial's we build honor the loss of innocence and the loss of childhood. that memorial says more than mourn the dead. it shames the living. issue brought all of us, every adult, to step been, stand-up, and speak out.
-- two-step then, stand up, and speak out. we cannot look away and we cannot become numb to it. bullying in our schools, in our playgrounds, on our parks, not frozen in time on a grim memorial. our new police chief understands this. he worked his way up through the ranks and is leader of the department who dramatically reduced violent crime. he is the right man at the right time for the right job. partnership is key. the police cannot do it alone. it is not enough to be mon violence in our neighborhoods. those who have knowledge and information that can help solve and prevent crimes have to come forward and help. together, we can make all our streets in every neighborhood safer.
third, we must put the city of chicago financial house in order. we cannot do any of these things if we squander the resources they require. from the moment i began my campaign for mayor, have been clear about the hard truths and the tough choices we face. we simply cannot afford the size of city government that we had in the past. taxpayers deserve a more effective and the efficient government and the one we have today. our city's financial situation is difficult and profound. we cannot ignore these problems a day longer. it is not just a matter of doing more with less. we must look at every aspect of city government and ask some basic questions. can we afford it? is it worth it? do we needed? is there a better deal? we are not the first city government to phase these tough questions. it is my fervent hope that we
become the first to solve them. the old ways no longer work. [applause] it is time for a new era of responsibility and reform. i reject out leaders in wisconsin and ohio are exploiting their financial choices to achieve a political goal. that is not the right course for chicagos future. however, doing everything the same way we always have is not the right course for chicagos future either. we will do no favors for city employees and our taxpayers if we let outdated rules and outmoded practices rule. i understand there will be those who oppose my efforts to reform schools, cut costs, and make government more effective. some will say this is the way we do things. we cannot try something new.
those are the rules. that is a prescription for failure that chicago will not accept. [applause] given the challenges we face, we need to look for better and smarter ways to meet our responsibilities. when i asked for new policies, i guarantee the one answer i will not tolerate is, we have never done it that way before. chicago is the city of yes, we can, not know, we cannot. chicago will not take no for an answer. finally, we need chicago is to be the best place in america to start a business, create jobs, and gain the knowledge and skills to fill the job tomorrow. in the last decade, chicago lost 200,000 residents. no great city can thrive by
shrinking. the best way to keep people from leaving is to attract the jobs that give them a good reason to stay. the jobs of tomorrow will go to the cities that produced the work force of tomorrow. we must make sure that every student a graduate from our high schools has a foundation for a good career or the opportunity to go to college. we must pass the illinois dream act so the children of undocumented immigrants have a chance to go to college. [applause] we must make sure that our city colleges are graduating students that businesses want to hire. in chicago bills a skilled and knowledgeable work force, the businesses and jobs of the future will be a path to our city. stronger schools, safer streets, affordable and effective government, good paying jobs. these are the fundamental challenges confronting our city. if we can get these things
right, nothing can stop chicago. people will come to see a city on the move. we can only get them right by working together. i pledge to you today that is exactly what we are going to do. city council members new and old, i reach out a hand of mutual respect and cooperation and welcome your ideas for change. that also goes for businesses large and small, and for all of our labor unions. it goes from organizations from every neighborhood and our charitable and academic institutions. all of us have a role to play in writing chicagos next chapter. anyone open to change will have a seat at that table. together, we can renew and strengthen our city. community by community, business by business, neighborhood by neighborhood, and block by block. none of what we must overcome
will be easy, but i know this in my heart. the challenges for the city of chicago are no match for the character of the people of chicago. i believe in our city. i know who we are and what we are made of. the pride of every ethnic, religious, and economic background, and nearly 3 million strong. almost 140 years ago, a great fire devastated chicago. some thought we would never recover. an entire city had to be rebuilt from the ground up, and it was. that is how we earned it the title of the second city. less than 100 years later, portions of our city burned once again. they were ignited by the murder of dr. martin luther king and the injustices he fought to overcome. chicago still bears some of the
scars from that time. while there is still work to do, we have made substantial progress. look at the three of us who are being sworn in today. they are public servants that represent the best of our city. i think it is fair to say, an average american whose family came from mississippi in the great migration north. the daughter of immigrants who came from mexico. a son of an israeli immigrant who came from tel aviv, a grandson of immigrants from eastern europe. our parents and grandparents came not just any city, they came to america's city. they came to chicago. [applause]
the three of us have achieved something our parents never imagined in our lifetimes. waller three families travel different paths, they came to the same united city for a simple reason, because this is the city where dreams are made. over the next four years, we have schools to fix. over the next four years, we have streets to make safe. we have a government to transform and businesses and jobs to attract. above all, let's never forget the dream, the dream that has made generation after generation come to chicago and stay here. i am confident in chicago's bitter because i have seen it in the eyes of our school children
and i heard it in their voices. i have seen it in the eyes of the high school students from ken would academy who won the eighth millennium scholarship, the highest number for any public school in chicago. in the simeon high school basketball team who showed us what they are made up throughout the season. in the graduates from the urban prep academy, a high school for african-american males which is sending 100% of its students to a four-year college for the second year in a row. and the sophomores from inglewood high school reached the semifinals in the spoken word contest. a junior who started his own after school or program. the gunmen who after a full day
-- a young man who spends several hours a day at the joffrey ballet school. and the gunmen who let us today in the pledge. -- the yana man who let us today in the pledge. the child i met in a cafe who is struggling at school. he became interested in public service and got more serious about his studies. b's ingetting a's and school. i saw it in brian reid, the 10th grader who gave me a tour of ralph ellison high school. shortly after i met brian, i learned that he had been attacked at his bus stop by for young men, who had beaten and robbed him. he was injured so badly he was hospitalized. when i heard the news, i reached out to his principal.
days later, his teacher gave me a note from bryant. he wrote, i am doing fine now and back in school. my attendance is good. i try very hard here. i just wanted to tell you thanks for checking on me. despite the obstacles, our children just keep on working and it never stopped dreaming. there is no doubt the children of chicago have what it takes. the question is, do we? will we do our part? for the next generation of chicago, let us roll up our sleeves and take on the hard work of securing chicagos future. our problems are large, but so is our capacity to solve them. only if all those who professed love for this city of big shoulders are willing to bear
the responsibility for keeping it strong. so today i asked each of you, those who live here and those who work here, business and labor, let us share the necessary sacrifices barely and justly. if everyone will give a little, no one will have to give too much. together, we will keep faith with future generations and the visionaries of our past to build on the shores of lake michigan a city where dreams are made. thank you, god bless you, and god bless the city of chicago. [applause] ♪
♪ ♪ >> in a few moments, house budget chairman paul ryan on the economy, the budget, and the national debt. later a discussion on the role of cia interrogations' in the mission that killed osama bin laden. after that, retired general james jones speaks at the national press club on middle east policy. later, rahm emanuel